PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook

This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.

EPYC 75F3

2021

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 66,490).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 280W vs 200W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 8434P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

EPYC 8434P

2023

Why buy it

✅+3.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $3,866 less on MSRP ($1,517 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 265.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 280W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

EPYC 75F3

2021

EPYC 8434P

2023

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.1% higher average FPS across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).
✅33.3% more PCIe lanes (128 vs 96) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Why buy it

✅+3.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $3,866 less on MSRP ($1,517 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Delivers 265.8% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 43.8 vs 12.0 PassMark/$ ($1,517 MSRP vs $5,383 MSRP).
✅Draws 200W instead of 280W, a 80W reduction.
✅Newer platform on SP6 with DDR5 support instead of SP3 and DDR4.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (64,505 vs 66,490).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 12.0 vs 43.8 PassMark/$ ($5,383 MSRP vs $1,517 MSRP).
❌40% higher power demand at 280W vs 200W.
❌Older platform position on SP3 with DDR4, while EPYC 8434P moves to SP6 and DDR5.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than EPYC 75F3 across 4 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (128 MB vs 256 MB).

Quick Answers

So, is EPYC 8434P better than EPYC 75F3?

It depends on what matters more to you. For gaming, EPYC 75F3 is ahead with a 4.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8434P pulls ahead with 3.1% better PassMark. EPYC 75F3 also has the bigger cache pool with 100% larger total L3 cache (256 MB vs 128 MB).

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, EPYC 8434P is the better fit. You are getting 3.1% better PassMark, backed by 48 cores and 96 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

EPYC 8434P is the smarter buy today. EPYC 8434P is $3,866 cheaper on MSRP at $1,517 MSRP versus $5,383 MSRP, and it gives you 3.1% better PassMark. The trade-off is that EPYC 75F3 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 4.1% average FPS lead across 4 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 265.8% better value on MSRP (43.8 vs 12.0 PassMark/$), so the better CPU is not just faster, it is also the cleaner value play on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

EPYC 8434P is the more future-proof choice for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2023 vs 2021), a healthier platform with SP6 and DDR5 instead of SP3, more multi-core headroom with 48 cores / 96 threads instead of 32/64, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That should give you a better long-term upgrade path for motherboard, RAM, and future CPU swaps.

Games Benchmarks

Paired with RTX 4090

To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.

Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

EPYC 75F3 Benchmark Check

EPYC 8434P Benchmark Check

Path of Exile 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
1080p
low	198 FPS	159 FPS
medium	161 FPS	131 FPS
high	130 FPS	110 FPS
ultra	100 FPS	87 FPS
1440p
low	162 FPS	142 FPS
medium	126 FPS	114 FPS
high	98 FPS	90 FPS
ultra	78 FPS	72 FPS
4K
low	73 FPS	68 FPS
medium	61 FPS	58 FPS
high	47 FPS	45 FPS
ultra	39 FPS	37 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 8434P

Path of Exile 2

Path of Exile 2

Counter-Strike 2

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
1080p
low	507 FPS	419 FPS
medium	443 FPS	369 FPS
high	354 FPS	300 FPS
ultra	288 FPS	236 FPS
1440p
low	417 FPS	344 FPS
medium	373 FPS	311 FPS
high	308 FPS	260 FPS
ultra	243 FPS	199 FPS
4K
low	257 FPS	212 FPS
medium	234 FPS	195 FPS
high	205 FPS	163 FPS
ultra	171 FPS	132 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 8434P

Counter-Strike 2

Counter-Strike 2

League of Legends

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
1080p
low	948 FPS	860 FPS
medium	792 FPS	786 FPS
high	734 FPS	760 FPS
ultra	657 FPS	682 FPS
1440p
low	661 FPS	663 FPS
medium	552 FPS	587 FPS
high	503 FPS	558 FPS
ultra	442 FPS	498 FPS
4K
low	472 FPS	435 FPS
medium	374 FPS	344 FPS
high	330 FPS	307 FPS
ultra	268 FPS	250 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 8434P

League of Legends

League of Legends

Valorant

Preset	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
1080p
low	1006 FPS	1023 FPS
medium	908 FPS	913 FPS
high	782 FPS	772 FPS
ultra	679 FPS	651 FPS
1440p
low	770 FPS	833 FPS
medium	671 FPS	712 FPS
high	575 FPS	598 FPS
ultra	500 FPS	492 FPS
4K
low	556 FPS	600 FPS
medium	495 FPS	524 FPS
high	435 FPS	451 FPS
ultra	374 FPS	376 FPS

Open EPYC 75F3 Open EPYC 8434P

Valorant

Valorant

Check FPS for your specific build

Technical Specifications

Side-by-side comparison of EPYC 75F3 and EPYC 8434P

EPYC 75F3

The EPYC 75F3 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 15 March 2021 (4 years ago). It is based on the Milan (2021−2023) architecture. It features 32 cores and 64 threads. Base frequency is 2.95 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 256 MB (total). L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 7 nm+ process technology. Socket: SP3. Thermal design power (TDP): 280 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-3200. Passmark benchmark score: 64,505 points. Launch price was $4,860.

EPYC 8434P

The EPYC 8434P is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 18 September 2023 (2 years ago). It is based on the Siena (2023−2024) architecture. It features 48 cores and 96 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 128 MB (total). L2 cache: 1 MB (per core). Built on 5 nm process technology. Socket: SP6. Thermal design power (TDP): 200 Watt. Memory support: DDR5. Passmark benchmark score: 66,490 points. Launch price was $2,700.

⚡

Processing Power

The EPYC 75F3 packs 32 cores / 64 threads, while the EPYC 8434P offers 48 cores / 96 threads — the EPYC 8434P has 16 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the EPYC 75F3 versus 3.1 GHz on the EPYC 8434P — a 25.4% clock advantage for the EPYC 75F3 (base: 2.95 GHz vs 2.5 GHz). The EPYC 75F3 uses the Milan (2021−2023) architecture (7 nm+), while the EPYC 8434P uses Siena (2023−2024) (5 nm). In PassMark, the EPYC 75F3 scores 64,505 against the EPYC 8434P's 66,490 — a 3% lead for the EPYC 8434P. L3 cache: 256 MB (total) on the EPYC 75F3 vs 128 MB (total) on the EPYC 8434P.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
Cores / Threads	32 / 64	48 / 96+50%
Boost Clock	4 GHz+29%	3.1 GHz
Base Clock	2.95 GHz+18%	2.5 GHz
L3 Cache	256 MB (total)+100%	128 MB (total)
L2 Cache	512 kB (per core)	1 MB (per core)+100%
Process	7 nm+	5 nm-29%
Architecture	Milan (2021−2023)	Siena (2023−2024)
PassMark	64,505	66,490+3%

🧠

Memory & Platform

The EPYC 75F3 uses the SP3 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the EPYC 8434P uses SP6 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches 3200 on the EPYC 75F3 versus 4800 on the EPYC 8434P — the EPYC 8434P supports 40% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The EPYC 75F3 supports up to 4096 of RAM compared to 1152 — 112.2% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 8 (EPYC 75F3) vs 6 (EPYC 8434P). PCIe lanes: 128 (EPYC 75F3) vs 96 (EPYC 8434P) — the EPYC 75F3 offers 32 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: SP3 (EPYC 75F3) and SP6 (EPYC 8434P).

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
Socket	SP3	SP6
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0	PCIe 4.0
Max RAM Speed	3200	4800+50%
Max RAM Capacity	4096+256%	1152
RAM Channels	8+33%	6
ECC Support	Yes	Yes
PCIe Lanes	128+33%	96

🔧

Advanced Features

Neither processor supports overclocking. Only the EPYC 8434P supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Both support VT-x, VT-d virtualization. Direct competitor: EPYC 75F3 rivals Xeon Platinum 8380; EPYC 8434P rivals Xeon Platinum 8452Y.

Feature	EPYC 75F3	EPYC 8434P
Integrated GPU	No	No
IGPU Model	None	None
Unlocked	No	No
AVX-512	No	Yes
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d	VT-x, VT-d

💰

Value Analysis

The EPYC 75F3 launched at $5383 MSRP, while the EPYC 8434P debuted at $1517. On MSRP ($5383 vs $1517), the EPYC 8434P is $3866 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the EPYC 75F3 delivers 12.0 pts/$ vs 43.8 pts/$ for the EPYC 8434P — making the EPYC 8434P the 114.1% better value option.